this survey suggests there is a particular reluctance among younger women, those under 35, to get the test done. if women are being put off attending screening, there will be a risk of more women being diagnosed and potentially losing their lives, it is imperative we find ways that make it more accessible for women to attend screening when invited and also that they understand what the testers for. cervical cancer is largely preventable and the message to women is not to let embarrassment stop them from getting a simple test which could end up saving their lives. laura gordon, bbc news, glasgow. a quick update from washington. we were telling you that the house has been voting on the funding measure to end the government shutdown in washington. it has now approved it so washington. it has now approved it so it hasjoined washington. it has now approved it so it has joined the senate impasse in the measure in funding the government right through until february eight. —— in passing.
now it's time for newsnight with evan davies for three decades, we've persuaded ourselves we don't need to fight other countries — that war had changed, it was all about insurgents. well, is it time to change our minds? russia, ithink, could initiate hostilities sooner than we expect. and a lot earlier than we would in similar circumstances. i don't think it will start with little green men. it will start with something we don't expect. britain is set to have a new strategic defence review this year. the generals are making the case for more money. so tonight, we'll take a good look at what our defence is for. and we'll hear a view from the us, too. what do they think our money should be buying? also tonight: they say attack is the best form of defence, which explains why the ukip leader is out to fight his rebellious colleagues. i shall respect the next steps
in the constitutional process, and will therefore not be resigning as party leader. we tried the men in grey suits, perhaps it's now time for the men in white coats. i don't know, he seems to me to have lost all touch with reality. we'll ask ukip old—timer suzanne evans whether the party is now over. and, forget david davis — this is the man running brexit for britain: civil servant olly robbins. but brexiteers worry that whitehall are not all with the programme. the officials will do their best to frustrate this process, because as i say, it goes against the grain so fundamentally. and, should the tradition of african women kneeling be scrapped? is it part of a proud heritage, or an obstacle to social progress? hello. what is our defence budget for? it's about 2% of our national income, going up to about £40 billion a year by the end
of the decade. unfortunately, £40 billion doesn't buy you as much is it used to. and the head of the army, general sir nick carter, set out the arguments for spending more today — mostly by reference to the threat of a stronger russia. former defence secretary sir michael fallon said tonight we should aim to spend 2.5% of gdp on defence. but, you can't decide what the right level of spending is until you know what it's for. you have to give the military a big budget or narrow priorities — you can't expect them to do everything with nothing. so, is fighting russia what we think british defence is about these days? or any country? britain is set to have a major review of priorities this year — which actually explains why sir nick carter made his pitch today, so we'll look at some of the central questions. so, the defence review that dare not speak its name is dead, long live the strategic defence and security review. it's not a pretty story from the government's point of view. faced with higher costs for buying equipment from abroad and an overset programme, the cabinet office started looking for cuts late last summer.
people in whitehall told me it couldn't be called a review because the then defence secretary, michael fallon, had conducted one of those in 2015 and didn't like the optics of having to do one again so soon. but it went deeper than that. as the cabinet office conducted its capability refresh, as some people called it, it started to look at possible deep cuts to britain's armed forces. details then leaked, and mps became outraged. newsnight‘s learned that the royal navy would lose its ability to assault enemy—held beaches. critically, when newsnight broke the news that there were plans to get rid of the amphibious landing fleet, it touched off angry scenes in parliament. why should thousands of soldiers, sailors and airmen be lost, elite units be merged, or aircraft, frigates and vital amphibious vessels be scrapped long before their out of service
dates? when michael fallon resigned in november, his successor, gavin williamson, got the prime minister's backing to stop the original cost—cutting exercise. now we can expect a full strategic defence and security review in the spring and summer. and today, the army chief set the stage, warning that britain must do more to counter russia's enhanced military capabilities, and willingness to use them. i believe our ability to pre—empt or respond to these threats will be eroded if we don't match up to them now. they represent a clear and present danger. critical to the exercise now is not just an attempt to balance the books, but to define the purpose of the british armed forces post—brexit. what hard power role does global britain expects to play, and how much will that cost?
if britain keeps on cutting. an army of 60,000 was mooted in the last exercise. but what role can it really play in helping its friends, or making any realistic preparations for war against another state? and mark urban is with me now. you used the word cutting, mark. an existing policy, is spending going 7 cutting of capability is what was in visit in this exercise in the last few months. the gus macpherson, we are spending more and more. —— the government says. it is more and more each year, a guarantee to spend more of the information on equipment. it's not enough, though. critically, the appreciation of sterling on big programmes like the f—35 fighter, trident replacement, has bitten in far more deeply than those rises can cope with. the forces have done what they've been doing constantly since the war,
they've overstepped the programme. they've put into many things, they cannot afford all of their ambitions. we are going to have the strategic defence review this year. let's suppose we are going to do one now in our guests with what the priorities are. what is the question and white with you the most critical question is, the average member of the public thinks the armed forces are here to fight other countries if that really has to happen. but the truth is, since the end of the cold war, britain simply doesn't have that ability any more. and you can park russia and china. i mean, they really mega— once, for a bit. any country or non—state actor, and there are some, that can attack warships with fast at supersonic and shipping missiles, people with submarines, that could be iran, north korea, people with sophisticated air defence networks, all of these countries have capabilities that the uk, really either match, resist or take on. even the air defences of a country
like syria were causing consternation in the mod when they were asked seriously to look at 2013 at whether or not the uk could do strikes. it is really about any other country with sophisticated weapons, fast jets, missiles, submarines, and, critically, once it starts, the stocks of things like torpedoes, anti—aircraft missiles, artillery shells, are so low that britain couldn't fight literally for more than a day or two. mark, that's a good question, thank you very much. let's raise that. joining me now is conservative mp and former british army captain johnny mercer. former assistant us secretary of defense, graham allison — he's now douglas dillon professor of government at the harvard kennedy school. hejoins us from the us.
i'm alsojoined by military historian and commentator max hastings. and kishwer falkner, liberal democrat peer and former national security strategy committee member. i will start with you if i may, graham allison, thank you for joining us. i want an american perspective on a medium power, medium—sized power, just off europe, across the atlantic, watch it we be spending on defence and what do you think of our role is being so what should we be spending? it is a tough set of questions and i know people will struggle with it. but i think britain historically has played a crucial role of leadership in europe. britain will not be able to defend its off against russia. but britain as part of an alliance can hope to create a stable europe, which in fact we've actually done and seen in the period since world war ii, including after the cold war.
so, britain's military forces are most of all about getting it a seat at the table and a voice in trying to shape sensible policy europe. that's a really clear answer. let me put this to you, i think we get a seat at the table if we spent 2% of our national income on defence, that is the native target. most other nato countries are not even spending that. should that be our aspiration, or should we go further to attain that medium power role for ourselves? i believe the 2% is important symbolically, because persuading americans that we should spend more of our taxpayers' money to defend europe than europeans do is not a long—term winning proposition. trump expresses the scepticism, it has a widespread view in the us. i don't agree with that, but certainly the majority would do so.
i think that having, that keeping the us significantly in the game and having europeans play their part is very important. secondly, more important than how much money is spent, i think it's crucial to meet the 2% criteria, but more important is what to buy. and i think unfortunately, both in the american defence budget and in the british defence budget, we are way too far in the legacy systems that are hugely expensive, and too short on new technologies that could make a more significant difference. that's the place where i would drill down if i were part of the british strategic review. graham allison, thank you so much, that's a really clear start to this does the goschen. let me turn to my other guests. max hastings, i want you to paint for me a scenario that we couldn't deal with now but you think we should be able to deal with, because you think we should be spending more. the russians our overtime trying to push the frontiers, especially in the baltic states. we have a small contingent in the baltic states up in the moment. what nick carter was saying, this is intended as a wake—up call. in recent years, we have been looking overwhelmingly at a
terrorist threat to britain and we have been worrying most about what terrorists can do on the streets. nick carter says we are living in a new world... it is an old world, isn't it?! not quite. the old idea that you have a state of peace and a state of war is off the agenda. what graham allison among other people have written a very vivid account of in the last year or two is that we have moved into a new world in which we are never going to have, hopefully, we may not have a big war but we are very unlikely to have absolute peace. and we are going to be having to cope with all sorts of threats of different levels. electronic threats, cyber threats, and also perhaps low—level military threats in places like the baltic states. nick carter said today, you said one platoon of boots on the ground is worth more than a squadron of aircraft. at the moment, last summer, an american general said to me, very frankly and bluntly, he said the british armed forces have now become so small that they are not taken seriously
by either your friends or your enemies. and i said, i hope the next time that you see our prime minister, you say that to her. americans are often too polite to us, they don't tell us what they are really thinking. that's the scenario, a russian incursion into estonia or something like that where we want to be players. do you agree we should be able to make a real contribution on an occasion like that was not absolutely. we are committed to it through nato membership apart from anything else. but it also comes back to a situation where we can't... the public have got to use the wars of choice. was in far—away places where we have informed debate, we have debates in parliament and then we decide whether we want to intervene or not. wrongly, in my opinion, in 2013 on syria, when we should have intervened. but i don't think the public understands that there is such a thing as a potential european theatre. and there is such a thing as state to state warfare in a way
that they haven't seen in new generations. quickly, johnny mercer, do you agree that we need to be able to deal with that kind of situation. i just want to see if you all agree? the only thing that should define the size and strength of the armed forces is the afri sarries we are against. you could talk about 2%. .. you could say, estonia, we don't have to care about it? that is a line on the ground, it's the whole process of russian aggression and what they have done in ukraine and how it has manifested itself in different types of what. what i want to get is how much extra we have to spend in order to deliver that. we are at 2% of gdp. 2.5%, 3%, what is it? the chap from america had it spot on. that is a signal of intent. the real question is, what is the future of the british armed forces? what do we want from them, what is the threat we are up against? if we want to go into estonia and make a contribution...
it should be welcomed that nick carter has come forward with a light in point of view that the character of conflict has changed, we have to have a national discussion, because taxpayers pay for it ultimately. what do you think we need extra to spend? the right way round to look at this is not to say, should it be 1%, 2%, we should be saying what can we do in the new world. we have had defence review after defence review, and they are always a joke. we have so many ring fenced areas. i believe that the trident nuclear deterrent is no longer relevant to the particular situation we are in. but no british political party is willing to talk about that. nobody is willing to talk about scrapping the gurkhas. the british public loves them. nobody is talking about the scottish
regiments. until we have a realistic defence review in which we look realistically at the threats out there and what we want to achieve, until we stop playing political games, we are not going to have credible armed forces. do you have an idea? i buy everything you're saying, you need to work out what you're going to do. i'm the chancellor, you're the defence secretary, how much actually do you need, 2 billion, 20 billion? you need a fairly significant chunk extra. it is impossible to put a figure, but there are a couple of things you could do. you could remove cyber from the budget and have a corporate levy or something like that, because our cyber offensive capabilities are used across the board by public institutions, commerce, and things like that, you could look at the defence review and the capabilities that you need, and then very carefully see where you can get the maximum value added. we have got two aircraft carriers.
we know that we will never be able to have task force groups for both of them, so we need to think how we ended up having two. catastrophe! it is done for political reasons. the most important point in this whole debate is this is an attempt, rather brave attempt, backed by the defence secretary, to try to get the british public to look at what is going on out there in the world. he is the elected mp and has voted to deal with. extra money for the nhs defence? the nhs in some ways is similar because the challenge around the nhs is changing all the time. living longer and all that. with defence, it is the same. the threat is changing. and as politicians, we have to meet that. there is no use having your... you want more money... you want more money on defence, more money on the nhs, you're not going to have extra borrowing. you need taxes to go up.
it is not a grown—up question to say it has got to be the nhs or defence. in a grown—up world we have to look at the whole range of issues facing government, and it is what happening at the moment is that government has to become so fixated with the nhs and social spending that we are not thinking nearly hard enough about security. but if taxes have to go up, they have to go up. we need to leave it there. thank you all very much indeed. well, having talked about defence, we can turn to war now — as that is where ukip finds itself at. the leader, henry bolton, is not resigning. he came outjust after 4pm this afternoon to tell us that. but 14 or 15 of his senior colleagues — we've literally lost count — have quit their roles because they want him to go. the party's national executive committee had already voted no confidence in him, but mr bolton chose not to bow to the pressure, and instead promised to take on the party apparatchiks. he said he'd "drain the swamp". john sweeney has been following today's ukip developments.
this happy breed of men, this little world, this precious stone, is now banned in with shame, with inky blocks and rotten parchment. that ukip, that was want to conquer others, hath made a shameful conquest of itself. four years ago, ukip won more votes than any other party in the european elections. eventually forcing david cameron's hand to call the brexit referendum. i will go to parliament and propose that the british people decide our future in europe through and in/ out
referendum on thursday the 23rd of june. that one, then nigel farage quit, diane james was queen of ukip to 18 days, then came paul nuttall, who fell after the party got a drubbing in the general election. next, henry bolton. the former army trooper made a splash when he said he could kill a badger with his own hands. when it came out that he had left his russian wife from model half his age, that was bad. when she was found to have tweeted racist claptrap about prince harry's bride to be, meghan markle, that was bad bad. despite a wave of resignations, today mr bolton put his foot down. i shall respect the next steps in the constitutional process, and will therefore not be resigning as party leader. i shall repeat, i will not be resigning as party leader. it is now time to put an end to the infighting that has been going on within the party for some time. and to remove those who have been part of that. in a single phrase,
it is time to drain the swamp. this swamp dweller disagrees. i think it is a foolish decision. i have no reason to believe that the party will support him. i think he will go down to an overwhelming defeat, which will add further humiliation to his recent experiences. i think it is all very sad. we tried the men in grey suits, perhaps now it is time for the men in white coats. he seems to me to have lost all touch with reality. the troubled leader, when looking for a shoulder to cry on, and tonight found anything but. you have turned this into a soap opera, and in doing so have brought the party into disrepute. i wouldn't agree with that, nigel. at the nec meeting yesterday, there wasn't one charge laid against me apart from that i had left my wife. what does henry bolton do if it all goes wrong next month? you know, i'll cross that
bridge when i come to it. i am still going to be campaigning solidly. i am not going to go away in that respect, no way. henry bolton can't last long, so focus returns to the party's once and perhaps future king. someone once said of nigel farage he doesn'tjust want to be the bride at the wedding but also the corpse at the funeral. with ukip going the way it is, he may well get his wish. well, i can speak to suzanne evans, former deputy chairwoman of ukip and a former leadership candidate for the party. good evening to you. what happens if henry bolton doesn't go, do you think? i really wish he would, as i think do the majority of members in ukip. he really has brought the party into disrepute, and it's not just about the fact he left his wife and very young children, the fact that he's taken up with a woman who is younger
than his eldest daughter. there is actually a little bit more to it than that. the membership feels very strongly that they've been misled from the start about the nature of this relationship, and nec members, too, have pointed out that it wasn'tjust about his personal life and the chaos that is brought to the party, but it is about other things as well. one nec member today saying it was about his mishandling of events, his political naivete, negligence in his role, mr deadlines and political ineptitude. so i really do wish he would go, as do most other people, i think. this whole farce that we are now going to have an emergency general meeting which is going to cost time and money, at which i fear he is going to be humiliated, just seems like a pointless attempt to cling on to what, really? he has lost the support of everybody. out of interest?
—— why don't you leave ukip has join the conservatives, out of interest? i think there is very much a role for ukip in public life. i think people today have been very keen to try and say that ukip's finished, but this is its 25th year, and there hasn't been a single year in which someone somewhere hasn't said, ukip is finished, it's all over, probably. we are still polling above the green party. just last week we had triple the lib dem vote in a local election by—election in bolton. i don't think anyone's talking about the demise of the lib dems all the greens. —— and the greens. but you don't seem to get on with each other. i can't find any policy difference between you all. it seems to be totally personal. what is it about ukip people that has made this party so dysfunctional over the last couple of years, do you think? my first years in ukip were actually, it was a honeymoon period i suppose if you like, and i really do trace this back to 2015 when nigel farage failed to get elected in thanet south
as he desperately wanted to do, seemed to throw all his toys out of the pram. there was this disastrous resignation and unresignation which again seemed to bring disrepute to the party, and i think from there it has been downhill all the way. and i think it is a bit rich of henry to talk about kicking out people who have been involved in infighting, he could probably be kicking out quite a few people including nigel farage and himself. it will make a great episode in the reunion one—day! suzanne evans, thank you very much indeed. there is someone you really need to know more about. he is olly robbins, the prime minister's chief european advisor. her sherpa, to use the european language. he is a public servant, and hisjob is basically to help deliver brexit. as far as that's concerned, you might say he's the second most
important person in this country after theresa may — although david davis and boris johnson might beg to differ. i suspect if you don't know olly robbins' name already, you'll get to hear it this year. but don't wait. our political editor, nick watt, has been scouting around looking at what mr robbins is up to. brexit is the most radical change of direction for this country. the idea that any bureaucrat could be in favour of radical change is a nonsense. the civil service may well have its own agenda. but ultimately, with a strong government, it should be the goverment's will that the civil service implements. i don't think that, watching him with three prime ministers, there'd ever be a moment that he would be in any way be patronising about the fact that he, you know, has more information at his fingertips. he's one of the tallest men in the british establishment, with one of the lowest profiles.
yet he wields some of the greatest powers. he's never at the centre of attention. but he's always in the room, by the prime minister's side. olly robbins, theresa may's chief adviser on europe, is being dubbed ‘the real brexit secretary'. possibly eclipsing david davis. beyond the world of whitehall, most people have no idea who olly robbins is. but, day by day, he is shaping the nature of britain's departure from the european union. he has the prime minister's ear in downing street, and he's in the engine room for the nitty—gritty of the brexit negotiations in brussels. well, every european prime minister or president has an olly robbins. has someone who works closely with them, whom they trust,
who is in permanent contact with all the others. these are people who telephone each other, e—mail each other, text each other. the actual formal meeting where we all see people sitting around a table for a split second, that's the tip of the iceberg. a recent adviser to theresa may says olly robbins has a knack of winning the confidence of prime ministers and senior mandarins. olly was somebody who really had the full trust of that team. had the full trust of the prime minister, had the full trust ofjeremy heywood as well, and was able to really sort of on meetings and run meetings in a way that made the process very smooth and very effective, and probably one ofjust a few officials who actually had that level of trust and access, i think. so, what are the instincts of the man shepherding us through this defining
moment in british history? a good starting point is the place where his worldview began to take shape. olly robbins embarked on the first steps of what must have looked like a classic journey through the establishment when he studied politics, philosophy and economics here at oxford in the 1990s. but there's a twist. he chose hertford college, which, despite the wooden panelling, has pioneered a much more inclusive admissions policy. an oxford contemporary who later worked with olly robbins in downing street had an inkling he would go far. even at university, it was already clear that this was a guy who was going to make a success of whatever he did. i think it was fair to say he's the sort of person you'd be more likely to see in tweed than in a football kit. you know, but that phenomenal brain was very much there. but also that sense of humour.
the intellectual clout of this modern college in an ancient setting was shown when olly robbins and three other graduates of hertford controlled intelligence at the heart of whitehall. the hertford gang say it was a conspiracy that never existed. i've spoken to one tory brexiteer who went to a grander oxford college, and is wary of olly robbins. "they‘ re all commie geographers", this tory told me of the hertford college alumni. brexiteers were delighted when it emerged that at oxford, the young olly robbins had written that the soviet union wasn't all bad. i understand that david davis, the actual brexit secretary, who has something of a prickly relationship with olly robbins, has a habit of opening meetings with him by welcoming colleagues
to the olly robbins people's soviet. everyone reportedly has a chuckle. but some leave ministers are suspicious of him, and regard him as a classic civil servant who sees brexit is a crisis to be managed rather than an opportunity to be seized. iwas, as you know, a member of the thatcher government. we came in and introduced a radical change in economic policy. and all the officials were aghast. they thought it would be a disaster. but at that time we had a strong cabinet, led by an outstanding prime minister, and they accepted the leadership, the political leadership, as is their constitutional duty. if a soft brexit is being negotiated, it must be the will of the prime minister and her cabinet. how can we possibly be in a position where the cabinet
and the prime minister has a certain direction and the civil service is taking it a different way? that surely is a sign of a weak government. olly robbins fears that the cabinet brexiteers, notably michael gove and borisjohnson, are on his case. he worked hard to win them over in the run—up to the prime minister's eu speech in florence last september, making changes on the way. but in the tense week in december when the phase one brexit negotiation deal appeared to be on the verge of collapse, there was some frustration in the cabinet office that those ministers were less supportive. well, ithink, inevitably, because of the role that boris and michael played during the leave campaign, clearly they are big figures who need to be part of this process and brought into it. and from what i've seen, i think olly deals with them and their offices very effectively.
and again, brings a level of diplomacy to the whole thing. deep in the basement of the guardian newspaper lies one final clue to the character of olly robbins. ruthlessness tinged with impeccable manners. angle grinders and drills were wielded by senior guardian editors to destroy files which had been leaked to them by edward snowden. olly robbins had issued a stern warning to the guardian that its continued possession of the files marked a threat to national security. he brokered a deal where the files were sawn to bits in an operation supervised by government agents. "punctiliously polite" was the guardian verdict on their whitehall adversary. so, a consummate whitehall operator with experience in the smoke and mirrors world of intelligence is guiding the brexit process.
but in his mind, the painful business of cutting deals and making compromises lies in the hands of his political controller. nick watt is with me. it was interesting to hear lord lawson. he is so wary of the civil service's role, their mindset and ability to thwart all of this. civil servants were frustrated because it goes against the grain, but those remarks have clearly struck a raw nerve in whitehall, because the cabinet secretary sir jeremy heywood has this evening rallied to the defence of the civil service. he doesn't speak out that much, but he issued a statement the —— to newsnight after the comments by lord lawson about the civil service in general. sirjeremy says the civil service take great pride in supporting the elected
government of the day, in their mandate and their mission is to deliver brexit. he says the civil service is putting enormous effort, and many of its very best people into making a success of the project, that is brexit. he says, interestingly, it is being tested on a daily basis and i'm very proud of what we have so far delivered. ok, it is a sensitive point, but the civil service strikes back. nick, thank you very much. now, have a look at these images. these show something pretty everyday in parts of africa: a woman kneeling at the feet of an elder. it is a traditional way in some cultures of a woman showing respect. in some, you might find men doing the same, but it's not as common. now, of course, for years this kind of greeting has been taken for granted in certain african cultures, just as curtseying to the queen is here. but we now live in a globalised era, where news, culture and people travel. and clearly, from a western
perspective, kneeling can be seen as an undignified reminder of women's low social status imposed by a male—run society. so, it was just a matter of time before the practice came to be challenged. and it was the head of oxfam international, winnie byanyima, who was born in uganda but lives in britain, who sparked a debate about it, tweeting, "how do we stop this humiliating practice?" well, this may sound likejust another debate about gender and identity politics, but it cuts across the usual lines. for some, byanyima is speaking up for women. for others, she's disrespectful of the cultural heritage of the african societies that practice kneeling. i'm joined by women from two cultures where kneeling is common — dami olonisakin and nicky olatubosun. dami, tell us about the kneeling, when do you kneel, or what form does the kneeling take, why do you kneel? kneeling is a form of respect. when you greet someone who is older than you, you do this to family, you do this to relatives.
it is a very popular part of yoruba culture within nigeria. it is something that both men and women do. it is notjust one—sided. it's something that everybody does. it is actually your knee touching the ground, it is notjust bending down. it can be, depending on how old the person is, the last time you saw them, if it was someone quite close to you. the further down you go, the more respect? you could definitely say that, yes. i understand, nicky, that of course men and women do do it. but it is a gender element or not? personally i feel like it is to do with both genders. men are supposed to prostrate, lie down oi'i the ground, and women are supposed to kneel but the men don't always prostrate themselves. no, they don't. it is no different to how women gently bend down sometimes. i feel like as long as you are signalling that type of respect, you are still acknowledging that somebody is older than you and
you're still greeting them. nobody is asking you to plank on the floor! the traditional serving your husband's meal, how does that go, nicky? you are meant to hold it out to him like he is a king. that sounds like quite a gender thing. most definitely, especially within nigeria and nigerian culture, we believe that the man is the head of the house, but it is not necessarily something that all cultures do. it is interesting and complicated. nicky, you are not keen on it and think it is past its sell—by date. well, basically... i feel like i shouldn't have to kneel down, like, understand, ok, it's about the respect part of it. i'm respecting my elders. i feel like you can be verbally respectful. i can do a new balance, a curtsey, i shouldn't i shouldn't have to kneel
on the ground to greet you. especially when my parents don't require it. i shouldn't have to kneel down to someone else. you know, ifeel like in different cultures all over the world there are different ways that we use nonverbal actions to display a form of greeting, i don't feel it should be scrapped. it has been done for centuries. just being able to greet someone who is older than you. in my culture... i feel like it should be more of a formal thing rather than informal as well. every time you see someone, you are meant to greet them that way. you would reserve it for state occasions, weddings, things like that. if you came to a traditional wedding, ifi was marrying the man, iwould kneel down for his parents as required. we have changed lots of things in the world... we may have... that's the thing, you can really compare tribal marking to kneeling down, that is problematic. tribal marking is problematic and we acknowledge that.
showing respect by kneeling down to someone is showing that you come from a good background, when you are doing it, we are thinking, your parents have raised you right. and it is a reflection of yourupbringing. that is how yoruba people see it. if you don't do it, do people think you are being disrespectful? i have never come across that. maybe because i do a little curtsey. i don't believe in kneeling down, i honestly don't, my mum doesn't require it of my friends and people she meets, therefore idon't feel that i should have two. thanks for giving us an insight into the debate about it. that's it for tonight. we end with proof that germans are not after all a nation of humourless engineers. they are, it seems, a nation of very silly engineers. so we leave with the alleged creation of johannes and phillip mickenbecker — the bathcopter. goodnight. whirring sound. the mild weather is set to stay with us the mild weather is set to stay with us for the foreseeable future, at least the next few days, and will be mild as we get on towards tuesday.
we are importing this in our up from the azores. and because it's going to be so mild, we will see light snow across central and northern areas. a chilly start the night across north—eastern areas but that milderair across north—eastern areas but that milder air will reach all areas and there will be some rain. these are there will be some rain. these are the sorts of temperatures we are expecting to start tuesday onwards. it's going to be a mild and breezy day tomorrow. relatively cloudy in fa ct. day tomorrow. relatively cloudy in fact. it could be a bit disappointing. we should see a little bit of sunshine in places through the afternoon. a wet start across western parts of scotland and northern ireland. some heavy persistent rain. combination of snowmelt, a lot of standing water. misty and murky conditions. an area of rain which will reach the eastern side of england which will queue —— clear away. the temperatures in double figures and some low cloud, mist and double figures and some low cloud,
mistand murk double figures and some low cloud, mist and murk in the hills. a windy day for all. we should see some gaps in the cloud. some sunshine here and there. there will continue to be a lot of cloud to most of us. double—figure values to many. we could mean 1a degrees in bright spots. we look to the west as we had run into wednesday that this deepening area of low pressure. a bit of disruption as it moves just to the north of scotland. packed isobars. an exceptionally windy day. some of it could be quite heavy and linger on into the south—east. it will move into the north—west. into thursday, we are into a slightly cooler air mass once again. even a
bit of wind over the scottish mountains once again. two of —— turning cooler once again. fairly windy as well. it looks like we're going to see a return to the milder as well. a bit of a contrasting week. this is newsday on the bbc. i i'm rico hizon in singapore. the headlines. a deal is done to keep the us government open to the immigration issue is yet to be resolved. everyday we stand arguing about keeping the lights on is another day we cannot spend negotiating daca or defence spending or any of our other shared priorities. a multi million—dollar plan to save the threatened great barrier reef. i am babita sharma in london. also on the programme. a former top communist in vietnam is jailed for corruption. and we find